Pages

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

When court should not allow clubbing of criminal cases?

Bare perusal of both the F.I.Rs. is enough to reach aconclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of differentsettings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is nomention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account ofelection of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanchand Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specificmention about the background and the reasons that sparked theincident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts ofSarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate thesame. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house ofcomplainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crimeby the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against theaccused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidentshave different contextual settings and different reasons for theiroccurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be saidto be arising out of one and the same transaction.

Of course, these observations are based upon prima facieconsideration of the material placed on record at this stage and wouldnot have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that theincidents have no co-relation with each other and having differentbackground as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to beclubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together andsimultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts inconflict with each other does not arise.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 401 OF 2014 Naresh @ Narendra Domaji Wankar,

VERSUSState of Maharashtra,

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE , J .DATED : 07.01. 2015 .Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2157Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally by consent.2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought clubbing andtrying together of two criminal cases, being (i) Special Case No. 6 of 2008(old case No. 12/07) and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No. 55 of 2007. Thefirst case is pending before the Special Court and arises out of Crime No.40 of 2005 registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaintlodged by Sumanbai Rangari. The second case pending before Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class arises out of Crime No. 42 of 2005registered on the basis of a complaint filed by petitioner no. 9 againstAvinash Manikrao Dhok and 13 other persons including Suman Rangari.According to petitioners, the incidents involved in both the said crimenumbers arise out of the same transaction pertaining to taking out ofprocession by Suman Rangari and Meerabai Gajbhiye in celebration ofthey being elected as Sarpanch and Up-Sapanch of Gram PanchayatShankarpur in the year 2005 and, therefore, interest of justice wouldrequire that both these cases were tried together and disposed of by acommon judgment. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an applicationbefore the Special Court, Warora in Special Case No. 6 of 2008 arising outof Crime No. 40 of 2005 for calling for the record of Criminal Case No. 55of 2007 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Chimur, and trying the casetogether with the sessions triable case. The application was rejected bythe learned Special Judge by his order passed on 27.3.2014 holding thatboth the incidents related to different transactions. Being aggrieved bythe same, the petitioners have filed the present petition before thisCourt.3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, both theincidents involved in Crime Nos. 40 of 2005 and 42 of 2005 arise out ofthe same transaction which was of taking out of the procession tocelebrate the election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the postsof Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. He submits that though Crime No. 42 of

2005 (FIR) does not refer to the said procession, there are witnesseswho are referring to the procession and that apart both the incidentshave taken place at one and the same time and that some of thewitnesses as well as some accused persons are common in both thecrimes. Therefore, according to him, this was a fit case for clubbingtogether of both the cases. He also submits that if both the cases are notclubbed together and allowed to be tried by separate Courts, there is apossibility of recording of conflicting verdict by two courts which willcause prejudice to the valuable rights of both the parties to provethemselves as innocents.4. According to learned APP, the places of incidents weredifferent and even the allegations made in both the F.I.Rs. disclosedprima facie registration of offence on different sets of facts. He submitsthat even though time of both the incidents has been stated to be sameand even though some of the witnesses and some of the accused arecommon, both the incidents are based upon different sets of facts and donot have co-relation with each other and, therefore, no case has beenmade out by the petitioners for clubbing together of both the aforesaidcases. All these facts have been appropriately considered by the learnedSpecial Judge and, therefore, there is no room for any interference withthe said order passed by the learned Special Judge, so submits learnedAPP.5. Upon going through the contents of F.I.R. in Crime Nos.

40/05 and 42/05 and also the impugned order, I find that the learned APPis right when he submits that the incidents narrated in the said F.I.Rs.pertain to different transactions, and thus I find no merit in thesubmission of learned counsel for the petitioners.6. Bare perusal of both the F.I.Rs. is enough to reach aconclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of differentsettings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is nomention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account ofelection of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanchand Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specificmention about the background and the reasons that sparked theincident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts ofSarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate thesame. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house ofcomplainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crimeby the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against theaccused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidentshave different contextual settings and different reasons for theiroccurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be saidto be arising out of one and the same transaction.

7. Of course, these observations are based upon prima facieconsideration of the material placed on record at this stage and wouldnot have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that theincidents have no co-relation with each other and having differentbackground as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to beclubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together andsimultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts inconflict with each other does not arise.8. In these circumstances, I find no fault nor any illegality inthe order passed by the learned Special Judge. If the two incidents areentirely different in nature, commonness of some of the witnesses andsome of the accused persons would not be enough for allowing of anapplication filed for clubbing together of the two cases. Writ petition is,therefore, devoid any merit and deserves to be dismissed.9. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.